Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress

More documents

Recommendations

Info

368 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK component behaviors that are concerned with both task and people. For instance, mentoring may involve both task-oriented clarifying behaviors and people-oriented developing behaviors (Yukl, 1994). However, path±goal theory (House, 1996) suggests that people-oriented behaviors are more appropriate than task-oriented behaviors for enhancing the development and job satisfaction of lower echelon employees (e.g., proteÂ geÂ s). Mintzberg (1973) identi®ed participating in developmental activities (e.g., mentoring) as a key leader role. Prior research (e.g., Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988) indicates that mentors provide both psychosocial support and career development functions to proteÂ geÂ s. As noted above, psychosocial support functions parallel leadership behaviors identi®ed by Yukl (1990) such as supporting, motivating and inspiring, and developing. Career development functions parallel leadership behaviors identi®ed by Yukl (1990) such as clarifying roles and objectives, developing, and networking. While some mentoring functions (e.g., protection) may not parallel leadership behavior and some leadership behaviors (e.g., team building) may not parallel mentoring functions, Table 1 suggests some conceptual overlap between leadership and mentoring. However, conceptual distinctions between leader behaviors and mentoring functions shown in Table 1 are in line with evidence of empirical distinctiveness between the constructs found in research cited above. Given that Table 1 highlights both similarities and di€erences between leader behaviors and mentoring functions and mentors may display leader behaviors (Gladstone, 1988), we concluded that leadership behaviors displayed by a mentor may in¯uence proteÂ geÂ perceptions of mentoring functions received. Theoretical background Manning et al.'s (1996) simpli®ed model of work stress, adapted from Matteson and Ivancevich (1982), provides the general theoretical framework for this study. According to Manning et al. (1996), personal (e.g., proteÂ geÂ age) and external (e.g., mentor's leadership behavior) sources of stress in¯uence stress as experienced, which in turn can a€ect potential outcomes (e.g., physical, psychological, organizational factors). In addition, having social support (e.g., mentoring functions received) can reduce stress as experienced and moderate the in¯uence of external sources of stress on stress as experienced (Manning et al., 1996; Parker and DeCotiis, 1983). The present study focuses on examining in¯uences of external sources of stress (mentor's leadership behavior) and social support (proteÂ geÂ perception of mentoring functions received) on job-related stress as experienced by the proteÂ geÂ . Based upon Manning et al.'s (1996) model of work stress, we proposed the general framework shown in Figure 1, to predict the relationships of mentor leadership style with proteÂ geÂ job-related stress, directly and via mentoring functions received by proteÂ geÂ . Figure 1 illustrates several key relationships. First, mentor leadership style is seen as being associated with both proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions and job-related stress. Second, proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions will in¯uence the level of proteÂ geÂ job-related stress. Third, as suggested by Manning et al. (1996), proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions will moderate the relationship between mentor transformational leadership behavior and proteÂ geÂ job-related stress. These relationships are described in detail below. To link leadership styles to mentoring functions received and job-related stress, we draw upon literature on the transformational±transactional leadership paradigm which has received extensive theoretical and empirical attention (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bennis, 1989; Bryman, 1992; Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 369 Figure 1. A model of leadership style, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress Burns, 1978; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Dubinsky, Yammarino and Jolson, 1995; Howell and Avolio, 1993; Podsako€ et al., 1990; Sashkin and Rosenbach, 1993; Shamir, House and Arthur, 1993; Yammarino et al., 1997). Several reviews (e.g., Bass, 1990, 1998; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996) and meta-analyses (Gaspar, 1992Ð`Transformational leadership: an integrative review of the literature'. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University; Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Patterson et al., 1995) have indicated that transactional leadership can result in expected performance levels, while transformational leadership can result in individual, group, and unit performance beyond expectations. In fact, transformational leadership is seen as a particularly powerful source of e€ective leadership in Army, Navy, and Air Force settings (e.g., Curphy, 1992; Yammarino and Bass, 1990), computer-mediated group settings (e.g., Sosik, Avolio and Kahai, 1997), innovative research and development contexts (e.g., Howell and Higgins, 1992; Howell and Avolio, 1993), total quality management programmes (Sosik and Dionne, 1997), and stress reduction contexts (Seltzer, Numero€ and Bass, 1989). The transactional±transformational leadership paradigm is grounded upon seminal work by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). Bass and Avolio's (1994) Full Range of Leadership (FRL) model represents a re®nement of Bass (1985) and is the foundation of extensive training of individuals from industry, education, military, religious, and non-pro®t sectors. The FRL model proposes that every leader may display some amount of laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership styles. Subsumed within each style are particular behaviors. The most ine€ective and passive style is laissez-faire, characterized by delays of action, absence, and indi€erence. More e€ective styles include transactional leadership, which involves `leaders approaching followers with an eye to exchanging one thing for another' (Burns, 1978, p. 4). The most e€ective form of transactional leadership is contingent reward leadership where one sets goals, clari®es desired outcomes, provides both positive and negative feedback, and exchanges rewards and recognition for accomplishments when they are deserved. Transformational leadership involves forming `a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
Page 1 and 2: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Page 3: LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 36
Page 7 and 8: LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 37
Page 15 and 16: Table 3. Factor loadings, composite

Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?